Xbox One family plan demo sharing service is a low blow

It appears some details have come to light about the true nature of the Xbox One family sharing plan which has no doubt been temporarily removed from view but will still be a feature of the console. According to what looks like a genuine post from a Microsoft employee, he states that Microsoft failed to convey how it worked properly, and the many interpreted what had been said the wrong way

.The Xbox One family sharing plan would have only allowed the ten family members (or friends) up to 60 minutes of play time before being prompted to purchase the full game via the Marketplace. The player’s progress would be saved so that if purchased they could continue playing where they left off.
EDIT: Apparently this has been debunked.Whilst neat, the fact that Microsoft hasn’t provided any clear details and let its audience believe something else is remarkable. Gamers automatically assumed that sharing would mean the full game where only one player could play at a time – Microsoft could have imposed time restrictions to prevent mass sharing which obviously wouldn’t have sat well with publishers.

The Xbox One family plan on paper sounds like a neat way to showcase games that maybe don’t have a Marketplace demo, but then again, with Sony offering demos for all its games, it doesn’t make sense for Microsoft to ditch one of its compounded features from the Xbox 360. Therefore, what value would the sharing plan have had, unless of course the 60 minutes play time and game saving would have been far greater time than playing a short demo.

The whole scenario is now a bit messy, but it’s possible we’ve not heard the last on the matter. It’s been suggested, that over time Microsoft will attempt to reintroduce its forward thinking ideas, but from the safety of making sure they are perfectly clear on how things work. To offer new realms alongside existing methods is surely the right way to present new policies and changes to established norms rather than the mess of introducing changes that weren’t in line with consumer expectations.

The idea of somehow being able to share digital games with friends is a neat one and in some cases could work very well – especially with more free to play models. Yet, these systems are open for abuse and thus make it tough choice to get right. It was wrong of Microsoft to not be totally clear on what their intent was with the sharing, but hopefully - if they are listening – then something in the future could be administered which is actually beneficial for everyone.

"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?"
--Kaz Hirai, CEO, Sony Computer Entertainment

You talking about what Greenberg said? I don't believe that one bit. It would be dumb as $#@! from a business standpoint do that. Basically you would be giving away 9 copies of the game with one purchase. They are simply saying basically as a see what you did. I don't believe a word of it. He can say say what they want but that is one of the dumbest things you could do with a product.

You talking about what Greenberg said? I don't believe that one bit. It would be dumb as $#@! from a business standpoint do that. Basically you would be giving away 9 copies of the game with one purchase. They are simply saying basically as a see what you did. I don't believe a word of it. He can say say what they want but that is one of the dumbest things you could do with a product.

Unless you are talking about something else.

No it doesn't. No time limit doesn't really mean you have access to the whole game. It just means you can play whatever they offer with no time limit.

You talking about what Greenberg said? I don't believe that one bit. It would be dumb as $#@! from a business standpoint do that. Basically you would be giving away 9 copies of the game with one purchase. They are simply saying basically as a see what you did. I don't believe a word of it. He can say say what they want but that is one of the dumbest things you could do with a product.

Unless you are talking about something else.

You are not giving away 9 copies of a game because only one person can have access to a game at time. Its pretty much the equilivent of borrowing a disc base game but in the cloud.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?"
--Kaz Hirai, CEO, Sony Computer Entertainment

By now they should have quashed all rumours and confirmed all policies.

Yeah, they can pretty much say anything, and we can't take it more than a grain of salt at this point. Really, they could literally say now that the family share was for all 10 people could play the same game at the same time, but they had to remove it because the DRM backlash. smh

You are not giving away 9 copies of a game because only one person can have access to a game at time. Its pretty much the equilivent of borrowing a disc base game but in the cloud.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

I know that it was limited to one person at a time but it didn't really make much sense. They were against disk based borrowing but they were for digital borrowing. That makes it even easier to access than giving a friend a disc to borrow. I know this was an incentive to help fight used games but I think it would have been even worse.

I mean it is seamless sharing without physically having to give the copy for the game. I could easily see the scenario of just say 3 friends buying 3 different games at one time so they are all basically getting 3 games for the price of one. I know there would be borrowing conflicts. But there are too many consumer advantages to outweigh the business advantages for it to make sense.

We all know they like to make money however they can. Allowing one person to let 10 people to play one game on their terms is not a good business move. Consumers will try their best to work out the best deal. If they can all work out something to be able to share their games back and forth easily over the net, it could mean quite a few list sales.

Also with this model you don't have to wait on your friend to finish the game unlike disc based. If you know your buddy won't be on for a while and he allows you, you can play his game in his down time.

This is awesome for the consumer but it is honestly just too good to be true. It makes sense for them to have a demo type atmosphere that the full game is tied to a time limit or many areas of the game being locked. Just like a demo. The business model doesn't make much sense from a profit stand point.

I know that it was limited to one person at a time but it didn't really make much sense. They were against disk based borrowing but they were for digital borrowing. That makes it even easier to access than giving a friend a disc to borrow. I know this was an incentive to help fight used games but I think it would have been even worse.

I mean it is seamless sharing without physically having to give the copy for the game. I could easily see the scenario of just say 3 friends buying 3 different games at one time so they are all basically getting 3 games for the price of one. I know there would be borrowing conflicts. But there are too many consumer advantages to outweigh the business advantages for it to make sense.

We all know they like to make money however they can. Allowing one person to let 10 people to play one game on their terms is not a good business move. Consumers will try their best to work out the best deal. If they can all work out something to be able to share their games back and forth easily over the net, it could mean quite a few list sales.

Also with this model you don't have to wait on your friend to finish the game unlike disc based. If you know your buddy won't be on for a while and he allows you, you can play his game in his down time.

This is awesome for the consumer but it is honestly just too good to be true. It makes sense for them to have a demo type atmosphere that the full game is tied to a time limit or many areas of the game being locked. Just like a demo. The business model doesn't make much sense from a profit stand point.

Exactly, which is why the 60 minute limit is likely to be true, but the fact that online DRM was dropped, they don't need to tell us the truth otherwise it will be another PR disaster.

SONY got in huge $#@! for allowing 5 game shares, as if developers would allow 10, that to me is a complete and utter lie.
Now the PS3 only has 2, but its really ment for if your system ever dies.

Exactly. No way they would double that number. Although difference is multiple people could play the copy at the same time with game sharing. But still, no way in hell they would do it for 10 games. This was likely timed by hours or a couple days if you were lucky. Or having a demo type atmosphere where sections of the game are locked off. I'm sorry but I don't believe they are giving you a full game for a minute. Regardless of what MS employees say.

Exactly. No way they would double that number. Although difference is multiple people could play the copy at the same time with game sharing. But still, no way in hell they would do it for 10 games. This was likely timed by hours or a couple days if you were lucky. Or having a demo type atmosphere where sections of the game are locked off. I'm sorry but I don't believe they are giving you a full game for a minute. Regardless of what MS employees say.

as i said above

but what ever they confirm will be called a lie if its good and/or people will say that MS will change it latter on.

Yeah, they can pretty much say anything, and we can't take it more than a grain of salt at this point. Really, they could literally say now that the family share was for all 10 people could play the same game at the same time, but they had to remove it because the DRM backlash. smh They have been a PR nightmare for gamers thus far.

I'm sorry you feel there is no way that MS could be churching this up. It isn't happening anymore so they could have said the service comes with free gold bars but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't happening. So we will never know what the end result would have been. Just like people not believing Sony had no plans of DRM. I for one didn't believe for a second that they weren't discussing it or had it implemented and backed off. But we will never know. I like to keep my eyes open and not believe every single thing that a company says to make them look good.

This seemed too good too be true and IMO it was. They could be telling the truth, very possible. But from a business standpoint they gained no advantage of giving you a game for 60 bucks and allowing you to share that full game with 10 people. Most of the stuff they had in place was to benefit the company more than the consumer. I see no reason this would have been any different.

A Timed full game demo entices customers to buy the full game. That makes sense. If you think I'm just blindly hating on MS, you're sadly mistaken. I'm simply looking at what makes sense from a logical standpoint. Just because someone in the company said it wasnt true for something that will never see the light of day, doesn't automatic name it true. Can it be true? Very much so but I have a hard time believing it.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.